There is a guarantee that they would, in fact, not support that. They are obstructionists, the party of minority rule who throw temper tantrums when they are not actively in power and imposing their minority views on the rest of us.
The only thing holding the obstructionism in check is the notion that they might be in the majority again someday. If they do take control of the Senate in the next election, it will be by a small margin, and they will have their own octogenarians with committee assignments. They may not want to set the precedent that committee seats that go vacant never get refilled.
I did a fair amount of searching around regarding what exactly Republicans have said regarding replacing Feinstein, and the only thing I can validate is that they would be against assigning another Senator temporarily while she is away, then having her come back. I think it’s their way of pushing her to quit.
The key to understanding conservatives is to internalize the fact that they don’t give a fuck about past precedent. All they care about is power. Gaining it and keeping it. If they have to flip back and forth to make up new, contradictory rules every day, then they will.
Just look at their “we can’t fill a supreme court seat during an election year” bullshit.
What you’re missing is how likely the new rule is to be used against them. They did the thing with the SC seat because they knew that it could lead to a SC majority, and that the possibility that the same tactic could be used against them (a Democratic Senate ignoring a Republican President’s SC Appointment) was not likely to happen for several years. But if Feinstein leaves permanently and they refuse to seat a replacement, they could feel the backlash of that as soon as the next Congress, if they take a slim majority. Chuck Grassley is also on the Judiciary Committee, and he’s no spring chicken either.
Conservatives don’t care that a rule change could be used against them, if they get power, they will change the rules, and then change them back the next day.
That’s what you’re missing. Consistency is for people who actually care about the rule of law. Conservatives only care about power in the moment, and have fucked themselves over long term several times before. The second they gain power, they just change the rules again. It’s the whole reason why conservatives focused on State governments in 2010. So that they could change the rules around elections and remain in power.
And with the constant backing of Fox News, they got away with it. Fox let them be as two faced as they pleased, changing rules and then changing them back as it benefited them.
That’s slowly starting to backfire, but I doubt that conservatives will change tactics, instead I expect them to double down.
There is a guarantee that they would, in fact, not support that. They are obstructionists, the party of minority rule who throw temper tantrums when they are not actively in power and imposing their minority views on the rest of us.
The only thing holding the obstructionism in check is the notion that they might be in the majority again someday. If they do take control of the Senate in the next election, it will be by a small margin, and they will have their own octogenarians with committee assignments. They may not want to set the precedent that committee seats that go vacant never get refilled.
I did a fair amount of searching around regarding what exactly Republicans have said regarding replacing Feinstein, and the only thing I can validate is that they would be against assigning another Senator temporarily while she is away, then having her come back. I think it’s their way of pushing her to quit.
The key to understanding conservatives is to internalize the fact that they don’t give a fuck about past precedent. All they care about is power. Gaining it and keeping it. If they have to flip back and forth to make up new, contradictory rules every day, then they will.
Just look at their “we can’t fill a supreme court seat during an election year” bullshit.
What you’re missing is how likely the new rule is to be used against them. They did the thing with the SC seat because they knew that it could lead to a SC majority, and that the possibility that the same tactic could be used against them (a Democratic Senate ignoring a Republican President’s SC Appointment) was not likely to happen for several years. But if Feinstein leaves permanently and they refuse to seat a replacement, they could feel the backlash of that as soon as the next Congress, if they take a slim majority. Chuck Grassley is also on the Judiciary Committee, and he’s no spring chicken either.
Conservatives don’t care that a rule change could be used against them, if they get power, they will change the rules, and then change them back the next day.
That’s what you’re missing. Consistency is for people who actually care about the rule of law. Conservatives only care about power in the moment, and have fucked themselves over long term several times before. The second they gain power, they just change the rules again. It’s the whole reason why conservatives focused on State governments in 2010. So that they could change the rules around elections and remain in power.
And with the constant backing of Fox News, they got away with it. Fox let them be as two faced as they pleased, changing rules and then changing them back as it benefited them.
That’s slowly starting to backfire, but I doubt that conservatives will change tactics, instead I expect them to double down.